It's a bit "ranty", but the message is that the internet is still rather vague in legal terms. To the best of my knowledge the Data Protection Act 1998 was the last major IT act (in the UK). I'd like to be better informed.

According ti the email from the Home Office, what O'Dwyer [allegedly] did is a crime under UK law.

The real issue is that the [alleged] offense was committed entirely within the bounds of of the United Kingdom (British citizen, in Britain, using a British website based on a British-owned server on British soil), yet the corts have ruled that the US has jurisdiction over the [alleged] offense.

If I vandalised a US embassy car on British soil, I woud not be extradited. If I burned the US flag, I would not be extradited. If I shouted racist comments at a passing US Marine, I might get beaten up, but I would not be extradited.

So why does breaking a US copyright on British soil warrant extradition? Because, as far as I can see, the British government and law-courts are more afraid of American corporations than they are of the wrath of their own citizens, and that's just wrong.

Just curious... has anyone actually confirmed where his website was hosted? I know he's a British citizen, but that doesn't mean he used a UK company. As far as I can tell, before the FBI seized his site, it was being hosted on a server in North Carolina (i.e. The USA). If that's the case, then the U.S. does have grounds to extradite him because the offense would have been committed on U.S. soil.

AFAIR, the same held true for MegaUpload owners. They had 'most' of their servers off shore, but since they had at least one in the U.S., it gave the U.S. cause to have the owners arrested in New Zealand in anticipation of extradition to the U.S.

Just did some reading.... TVShack's about page indicated that the website was run and hosted by Swedish students in Sweden. The U.K. court papers say that the website was hosted in the Netherlands. The U.S. argument appears not to have anything to do with the hosting location, but the profits that O'Dwyer (who admitted ownership of TVShack.net) gained from U.S. Advertising companies, and through the link sharing sites that their website pointed to of illegal copyrighted content. The U.S. further argued that a day after they seized control of TVShack.net, O'Dwyer secured the domain TVShack.cc and posted an image to the home page which said "F*uck the Police".

Interesting, could you throw in some links? Ok hand's up I'm still reading (when I can) on this so could have missed it, but sometimes there's a marked divergance in reporting depending on which side of the pond you sit.

I'm only guessing that London Police were asked to pick him up (by U.S. Authorities)... I would think that its much like with the MegaUpload owners, who were in New Zealand, and arrested by New Zealand Police for extradition to the U.S. AFAIK, there were no crimes committed in New Zealand (much like O'Dwyer in the U.K.). Obviously the U.S. Authorities didn't act alone, and gained cooperation from the countries they've dealt with in getting these individuals in custody to stand trial. If the U.S. did something wrong, then I would agree with signing the petition, but if they acted according to the law and to the agreements with the U.K. (and New Zealand), then its hard for me to find fault with their request.

must not tolerate censorship - this isn't censorship.must stand up for our rights online - "must" again, and what online rights are we talking about here?did his best to play by the rules - which rules are The Rules? The section on copyright essentially says "we should be allowed to disregard it with impunity if we like"

The right to a fair trial in the nation in which the alleged offense took place?

My personal beef with this issue is not whether O'Dwyer is guilty of breach of copyright*, but that he is being extradited to another country to be tried for an alleged offense that was [allegedly] commited in this country.

*Under UK law he is probably not guilty of breach of copyright, since the "equivalent offense" referred to by the Home Office is about providing a device that can be used to make unauthorised copies. O'Dwyer provided links to other websites, which, in my interpretation of the law, are not "devices designed to copy", any more than a library card allows you to create a copy of a book. However, under US law, providing links to other sites has been made illegal, with a potential fine of $150,000 per offense, which could mean per link on O'Dwyer's site. The pressure for extradition, IMO, is from the companies who feel agrieved by the links, who want O'Dwyer tried under the law that causes him the most damage.

IMO, the Home Office, and Theresa May in particular have acted in a very cowardly manner in this affair, bending over backwards to accommodate the wishes of a group with no actual powers in this incident.

I think it's easier to stir people up by pushing the censorship button.

For what it's worth, I think that O'Dwyer's actions were questionable, but, because the law has a long way to go to catch up with the digital age, they were not against the word of the law in this country. He should be prosecuted under UK law, found innocent, and then the case used as a starting point to write a sensible law governing the actions of anybody using a UK website (the cookies ruling was a start).